Background
During a 2023 undercover operation in Prescott, a detective used a social-media profile and told Jeffrey Joseph York that he had children ages 7 and 11. York arranged to meet the detective and the purported children at a park and spoke by phone with a person posing as the detective’s daughter. York was arrested at the meeting location; his truck contained candy, a condom, and the phone used in the communications.
A jury convicted York of luring a minor for sexual exploitation and two counts of attempted sexual misconduct with a minor, and found each offense was a dangerous crime against children. When York was sentenced, the Court of Appeals’ then-controlling decision in State v. Marner barred dangerous-crimes-against-children enhancements where the purported victim was fictitious. The superior court therefore imposed consecutive non-enhanced terms of four years for luring and three years on each attempt count.
The Court’s Holding
The court vacated all of York’s sentences and remanded for resentencing. The Arizona Supreme Court had since reversed the earlier Marner decision and held that the dangerous-crimes-against-children enhancements apply despite the absence of an actual child victim.
Because York’s direct appeal was pending, his case was not final, and the intervening Supreme Court decision applied retroactively to it. Applying that decision did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because neither version of Marner made previously lawful conduct criminal. The court also rejected York’s plea-related due-process argument because the State withdrew its final plea offer before the original Marner decision, when York faced potential enhanced penalties.
Key Takeaways
- An intervening Arizona Supreme Court sentencing decision applies to criminal cases still pending on direct appeal.
- Dangerous-crimes-against-children enhancements may apply to these offenses even when the supposed child victim was fictitious.
- On remand, the superior court must sentence under A.R.S. § 13-705 while considering its prior aggravation and mitigation findings.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Arizona Supreme Court’s reversal of the earlier Marner rule to an unfinished prosecution involving an undercover child-sex-crimes sting. It confirms that sentences imposed under the superseded rule may be revisited on direct appeal.
The court did not direct a particular term on remand, leaving the superior court to impose a lawful and just enhanced sentence consistent with the applicable sentencing statute and its original sentencing findings.